Blood. Either here or there.

Quote :

I'm not making a case for child molestation here, but certain people reckon that the concept of childhood is a rather novel one. In the days before widespread literacy, an adult didn't neccessarily know much more then a youngster. The boundary between the two was at whatever age a kid learned the bulk of the facts of life. So what we call a child was able to drink, able to work, and able to marry. Nowadays, the boundary between adulthood and childhood is weakening again, as television restores the pre-literate equilibrium between child and adult.

Very true. And indeed there are some who would argue that childhood ended once adolescence began. The notion of an age of consent would have been laughed off the stage in previous centuries. And yet, today, for all our civilisation, there are 'bras' for 6 year olds on sale in M&S and playboy pencil cases in schoolbags across the country. There are eight year olds going on sunbeds for their communion and seven year olds learning to move like the Sugababes.

A six year old beauty queen, JonBenet Ramsay was murdered in the States a number of years ago. An eleven year old daughter of separated parents in Canada was in a position to take her parents to court because her father, in disciplining her would not allow her to go on a school trip and she won her case. The definition of childhood and what kind of behaviour is appropriate to children is not and never has been constant. Ruth Lawrence was the youngest person ever to enter Oxford at 11, coming first of over 500 candidates in the entry exam (early 1980s) but John Donne in the 1500s was a university student in his early teens -as were most of his contemporaries of his class. I think 17 is the minimum age here to attend university.

Quote :

If someone killed your child with a hatchet and said he had a sickness would you accept that a bit of counciling and some medication would be fine. This mindset seems to be firmly engrained in Europe.

This leniency is the reason violence and crime is on the rise over there.

Strangely enough, we do accept that people are sometimes unwell and we do offer them help - I think Americans do too, to an extent. Civilisations that practice the kind of eugenics you prescribe aren't terribly civilised by modern standards.


Then again, one has to wonder about the rights of a nation to moralise which cleanses its population of undesirables by denying them access to medical care without insurance and which brutalises young people and adults alike in torture camps on foreign soils in the name of a society where Bushism is the new McCarthyism and terrorists are the new Reds under the beds.

Mixing up different subjects. Who denies anyone access to health care.

This kind of thing rings many alarm bells in my head.

Firstly, let me say, anyone who solicits a minor for sex, regardless as to mitigating circumstances, is committing a very serious crime.

On the other hand, turning such an act into entertainment for others, is a more heineous act. Teaching the potential sickos how they may be stung, will make them more careful and will mean that more kids will be lured away from any safety that might surround them. Also, the audience of such 'shows' must be examined under a microscope. I mean this show seems to have it all: drugs - the sicko had a bottle of something with him (might have been booze), forbidden sex, with lots of juicy details and violence. In my opinion, the sicko should definitely do time, but the producers of this show should also do time. Procuring a minor for sex is also a crime (and I'm not bothered if the 'minor' in this show was an actual minor or not), the girl looked like a minor and was portrayed like a minor that wanted to and was very willing to experiment in sexual activity. This will have undoubtedly whetted some sick appetites to go online to look for similar 'available' gratification.

The sicko in this particular video is unusual. He exhibited manic behaviour that seems to be impulsive in nature. I'm not excusing his actions, not in the least, but I am suggesting that the producers of the show inspired a behaviour that seems to be atypical. On top of that, I cannot but wonder how many hooks they baited before they got a bite.

I'm not impressed by the actions of the cops either. If their brutality at the end was warranted, then they deliberately endangered this child/woman to facilitate the show. The pat down was by no means conclusive and the sicko could have well been armed.

On top of everything else, this show (and I may be wrong, the video doesn't show the whole show), gives a false impression with regard to the dangers that children face from sexual predators. In the vast majority of instances, the perpetrator is someone well known to the family, or someone who's spent considerable time 'grooming' the victim. That's what really freaks me out about this particular example. The manic behaviour seems to suggest that either the sicko should have a record as long as his arm (which doesn't seem likely), or that the procurement by the show coupled with whatever mental hangups the sicko was suffering from at the time triggered an episode that would be described as being outside this guy's normal character. The court will definitely have trouble with this case and I hope they drag in the makers of the show as accessories.

One final point and I think it kinda ties in with what Kate and Audi have been saying. I think there's a tendency for society to sex kids up but at the same time portray them as forbidden fruit. The forbidden fruit setting is very understandable but coupled with the sexing up may contribute significantly to borderline cases. Christ, I remember a few years back, myself and a friend, argued vehemently with a manager of a supermarket in Arthur's Quay, in Limirick, about them choosing to market feather boas to very young children. I ask myself what are we creating here?

The show has an interesting pedigree - the Wiki Link gives a bit of information about the background, the organisation that does the research (called Perverted Justice), the relationship between the cops and the group and the tv station, which has had a controversial history.

The whole thing makes my skin crawl.

youngdan wrote:

Mixing up different subjects. Who denies anyone access to health care.

Nobody is denied the fundamental right of access to health care in the USA. However, perhaps a quote by a former Law Lord in England on a separate subject is indicative - "Justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to rich and poor alike".

Nobody is stopping anybody buying a Bentley either. I should not be forced to buy some bum a bentley though

But society doesn't either benefit or erode by you either driving a Bentley or not. If however, you have unhealthy people, that creates a burden on the State more generally. This was of course the basis on which the foundations of the future welfare states was laid. When in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century States quickly realised that they could not conscript vast amounts of young men to fight in the Crimean and Boer Wars owing to their ill health. This directly impacted on the ability of the State to carry out the business of the day. Add to this the effect that avoidable conditions such as cholera and waterbourne diseases had on the ability of a State to raise an efficient workforce and it soon becomes clear that aside from health care being an issue about human rights - which it is - it is also the most efficient and cost effective way of running a country.

The same goes for deprived areas in terms of social infrastructure. The cost of putting the social infrastructure in place to give kids worth is a fraction of putting only several prisoners in jail on an annualised basis. Therefore it is far more cost effective to treat the cause of antisocial behaviour than it is to treat the symption.

** johnfas posted above

Good post Hermes. I think it's a seriously sick programme and you make the excellent point that the people who indulge in viewing this prurience deserve to have their heads examined as it's like the viewers are the opposite side of the same coin as the sick paedophile. If these people are sick then isn't it just as sick if not sicker because of the moral depravity involved to indulge and enjoy and gain satisfaction from the sicknesses of others, however illegal their actions are.

As 905 perhaps suggests, sexual depravity is culturally based - the age of consent is arbitrarily imposed and in fact isn't it true that if a young woman can bear children then surely that's a "natural" consensual age. I'm sure it's not uncommon to find young women who are mature for their age and are indeed ready to bear children. Is this very very rare? I don't think so.

Rockyracoon raises interesting points about children being subject to all sorts these days but didn't a few thirtysomethings here grow through their early teens with fear of nuclear war hanging over the world or did I pick up media signals wrongly back then ?

Sex is a natural instinct and we could be more mature, responsible and respectful about the knowledge and awareness of it with the children in society - would it not arm children more against pitfalls concerned with it? I agree that predatory characters who take advantage of vulnerable kids are reprehensible beyond question but maybe it's best seen as a sickness - maybe some of you don't see it as a sickness? I certainly don't think it's at all healthy to indulge your Friday night viewing with Catching Predators or whatever it's called.

Very interesting posting. I just can't bring myself to watch the video though.

cactus flower wrote:

Very interesting posting. I just can't bring myself to watch the video though.

It's not bad at all - I urge you to watch it! One of the most disgusting things is the size of your wan's house.

There is nothing x-rated in the video. If you are nervous keep one eye closed

I've just read the wiki page Kate linked to and I must say that it makes my skin crawl too. I'd no idea that this show was anything more than a one-off. Christ, they're just catching enough to fill a schedule, over a very short time frame. And indeed, the amount of predators that they're catching is declining. Since we know that the show has few or no curative properties in as far as predators are concerned, we can safely assume that they're teaching predators how to evade detection and capture.

I've no issue whatsoever about catching these people using police decoys. My revulsion and fear begins with the corporate need to capitalise on and turn it into entertainment.

I seriously feel like I've eaten something that disagrees with me and am sick to my stomach at the idea of this show and that it's been running and profiting off sickness for years now, with no contribution whatsoever to society.

The argument that I'm advancing is very different to the old argument that's thrown around about Hollywood inspiring violence etc. This is real-life TV. It is pornography of the lowest order and contributes, indeed it promotes, the objectification and defilement of children whilst masquerading as a moral authority.

Give me the bucket!

I appreciate that there is politics between NBC and ABC but the comments of the DA in these clips are worth listening to, even if the rest of the videos are ignored.

Every one of the men arrested in the series filmed at Murphy, Texas where the sting-house was located, had the charges against them dismissed because the police hadn't been involved in the sting, hadn't seen all (or even some) of the transcripts of the internet conversations in each case before the arrests were made. There wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them. That is scary. Those who are guilty aren't prosecuted because of the interference of the media and the involvement of a vigilante group with an agenda of its own. If all 23 men arrested were geniune predators, then the world is a far worse place for this programme.

The question is also raised, youngdan, about Miranda and the DA suggests that if the tv station was acting on behalf of the police, then the men should have been mirandized.

One man died by suicide when the police and tv cameras came to his house. After an actor had phoned him 3 times posing as a 13 year old inviting him to the sting-house and he didn't turn up.

Parts one and two of the ABC 20/20 investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOgsPglrFdc&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET43wwyqteM&feature=related


I am far from happy with the presence of sexual predators in society but media predation is also wrong. In fact, everything about this programme is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The police and the media equally come out of this badly.

That is all well and good but you overlook one thing. The lad who shot himself was the assistant DA in the neighbouring county. These old boys in Texas most likely were friends but even in the unlikely event they weren't they sure as hell don't want a slick yankee like Hanson making them look stupid and causing one of them to kill himself. I have been told by Texans that those small town hickabillies are a breed of their own.

Quote :

That is all well and good but you overlook one thing. The lad who shot himself was the assistant DA in the neighbouring county. These old boys in Texas most likely were friends but even in the unlikely event they weren't they sure as hell don't want a slick yankee like Hanson making them look stupid and causing one of them to kill himself. I have been told by Texans that those small town hickabillies are a breed of their own.

Because I didn't mention it doesn't mean I overlooked it, but I don't think it matters particularly who you are when you find yourself in a situation where you think your only choices boil down to inequitable trial by telly or taking your own life. He should not have been in that position. I also didn't overlook the point that his sister has taken a case against the TV programme, saying that they were in charge of the investigation, not the police.

Quote :

These old boys in Texas most likely were friends but even in the unlikely event they weren't they sure as hell don't want a slick yankee like Hanson making them look stupid and causing one of them to kill himself. I have been told by Texans that those small town hickabillies are a breed of their own.

I don't think that's an argument for anything.

It is not an argument against anything but it is accurate. The 20/20 show had the allegation of the guy having child porn on his computer. This would be a far greater offense than solicitation of a 13 year old both legally and the shame involved for him.

I am not sorry for him in the least. He most likely sent many swat teams out himself to bust dope smokers. He was like Murphy's dog, he could give it but he couldn't take it.

Methinks there is a fundamentally different approach from, say, Dan and meself, and almost all other posters. Ignoring the program and its affects (which would serve as an entire topic on its own), there seems to be a consensus that we should somehow be more tolerant and understading of peadophilia (spelling?). That back in Victorian times and further that child sex was an accepted norm. That social norms should be somehow be more lenient in modern times to reflect - cultural diversity, emotional complexity? I don't know what the underlying theme is really given some of the rebuttals have been made.

Now, I amn't no expert on sexual predators and their behavior but what information I've come across seems to suggest that peadophiles have urges which they cannot control and which is hard to modify without drug treatment or some other alternatives. In the meantime, saying that most children are safe from such predators ignores the fundamental issue that all children should be safe from such predators. The exact age is also a red herring. Age has nothing to do with the debate. The actions of sexual predators and how we deal with people who will not or can not control their urges is the central and unabiding issue.

Imo, tolerance is abhorrent and counseling close to useless. Economic arguments against penalisation just won't add up to the wreckage of a young persons life and the attendant costs associated with the predator. How these people are brought out into the light of day doesn't overly concern me, although a profit making show is somehow creepy in this regard.

Such people have existed from the dawn of eternity I would guess. Some because of wealth and priviledge may have made the practice seem normal. Life expectancy would have also played a part centuries and millenia ago. The view that children were a commodity to some extent played a part in other societies.

Years back a Guard would have know who such people were in the locality and kept an eye on them. Children were not stupid and could stear clear. A community can often keep such people at bay or ostracise them. Given modern technology, ability to travel and the breakdown of social cohension such standards are hard to applyin today's world.

rockyracoon wrote

Quote :

there seems to be a consensus that we should somehow be more tolerant and understading of peadophilia (spelling?). That back in Victorian times and further that child sex was an accepted norm. That social norms should be somehow be more lenient in modern times to reflect - cultural diversity, emotional complexity? I don't know what the underlying theme is really given some of the rebuttals have been made.

I don't think there is a person on this site who considers that we should be more tolerant of paedophilia. What is happening here, however, is a move to understand attitudes towards children over the years - in those posts that look more at sociological issues - and to consider the issues around the crimes that happen. They don't happen in a vacuum and they are not black and white issues. Perhaps the reason we've come such a short distance in our understanding of sexual crime - not just against children but against women is because it's too easy to take the blanket high-moral ground and apply the same rules to all perpetrators of all crimes. Life's not like that.

I'm particularly interested in the legal aspect of how crimes are defined, diagnosed, prosecuted because the law and the offence are often not in harmony.

Age has a lot to do with the debate, and it's an interesting sidebar, because if we try to impose laws and prosecute on the basis of those laws, then we have the unnatural situation where we match the unchanging chronological age of a victim (or a perpetrator) with the mutable and variable emotional, social and sexual maturity of individuals.

Nah, I can't see age as an issue here. I admit I may have a blind spot in this particular topic and debate but I see the whole episode in black and white terms. Its the predator against the vulnerable. Whether the victim is vulnerable at 84 or 16 years of age doesn't matter. At some point soceity has to draw a line in the sand. I don't see any mitigating factors in favour of this particular predator or his ilk.

I'm going to have to leave it there. I amn't changing my mind on this issue, nor can I see myself modifying my postition even slightly. gl

That's fair enough, rockyracoon. I wouldn't expect anyone to modify their position and I don't think that this discussion is about changing people's minds but about trying to understand different viewpoints. I understand yours but I don't accept it as reasonable in my experience of the world - but that's not a reason not to engage with you.

I do think it would be worth your while looking at the two ABC clips above, because they show another kind of predation and there's a suggestion that some of the men caught on camera were preyed upon and that's not right either. You can't take advantage of a person, lure them into a compromising position when some of them are vulnerable enough in their own way and then be surprised when they bite at something that is handed to them on a plate. Listening to the very provocative way that some of the supposed teenagers were talking to the men would imply that their mental and emotional age is far greater than their chronological age.

It's possible that you could apply your 'predator against the vulnerable' rule to some of the men who might have been caught in these stings - but we won't know because there isn't enough information given for us to form a reasoned judgement. The behaviour of Perverted Justice, of NBC and of the police is not beyond reproach and while every man must be held responsible for his actions, there are legal provisions for a defence of entrapment and there are legal provisions for mitigating circumstances. And this is for very good reason.

I personally know three men well, more or less, who have abused children and there's only one that I'd like to see behind bars for the rest of his life because he's a nasty, nasty piece of work with no conscience and no heart. He preyed on children, the other two didn't. I think there's an important distinction there. The other two, however, were very, very vulnerable men - one of whom was systematically abused over his own lifetime and didn't know any better when he began abusing someone else. I know that they both suffered tremendously, certainly no less than their victims but in a different way. I feel sorry for them both and for their victims. At least, one could say that their victims will receive some sympathy and support over their lifetimes and no matter what efforts they go to, the perpetrators will always be vilified and will rarely have the opportunity to move on with their lives in the way that their victims will. Some would say that there's a certain justice in that; the crime is despicable afterall.

I also know a number of women and men who have been abused and they all come to terms with their experiences in very different ways. In one instance two sisters were abused by one of their family members. One of them has done a lot of work in therapy and maintains solid and genuinely friendly contact with the person who is desperately remorseful for the hurt he caused and who has done all the work required of him by the law and medics. The other sister cannot bear to be anywhere in his vicinity. Both responses are legitimate.

Because of the kinds of work I do and have done over the years, I've come across victims and perpetrators in many guises and I've learned that it's a very, very dangerous step to take, to tar everyone with the one brush. Everyone's story is different and everyone's story deserves the courtesy of being heard in its context. I have no sympathy, absolutely none, with a convicted paedophile, though I have no intention of passing judgement on people seen in a chunk of a video clip prepared by people whose motives are less than honourable and whose methods are despicable. I've had the privilege, if you can call it that, through the work that I do, to sit in courtrooms and hear children give evidence by video link of what has happened to them and hear defendents try to account for their actions enough times to know that not all cases are the same nor should they be treated the same. I call it a privilege, not because it's enjoyable or pleasant - it's most certainly not, but because it allows me, perhaps a greater understanding and insight into these issues than the average reader of the ten paragraph report in the newspaper. It is a privilege however, to see how our Gardaí and judges treat those victims and the innocent-until-proven guilty (though I know Hermes won't agree with me on that). It's civilised, fair and utterly compassionate in my experience and that is one of the factors that leads me to be so repulsed by what I saw on that NBC clip. I will remain convinced - as you will of your own convictions- that we rush to judgement far too quickly as a society and that that swift movement is very, very unhelpful to both victims and to perpetrators.

Kate wrote:

... It is a privilege however, to see how our Gardaí and judges
treat those victims and the innocent-until-proven guilty (though I know
Hermes won't agree with me on that). ...

Tis a pleasure to say with absolute certainty, for once, that you're wrong. I do agree with you, in fact I agree with practically everything you've said on the subject in this thread thus far.

Not being a freelancer (one of my few regrets) I wouldn't be allowed into an In Camera sitting. And would and have declined to be a McKenzie in these types of sittings. I don't have the stomach for it I'm afraid (being a member of the Samaritans many years ago has taught me this) and I totally respect your strength for being able to go through it. Hanging around the courts as much as I do, I'm quite aware of what goes on, so I do indeed know where you're coming from. Having examined our prison system (though not as a prisoner - yet...), I'm aware that for the most part that prisoners convicted for sexual offences are treated as people with disorders and are considered quite different to garden variety prisoners.

I think the issue of sexual predators and their victims is a very taboo subject in this country (and most others) and that the majority are unaware of the way these things are viewed, from a legal perspective at least. I think it's in need of discussion at a national level, to at least attempt to ascertain opinions and reach a consensus. I don't think sensational crap like the show under discussion is the vehicle that will facilitate this, it's going in the completely wrong direction imo.

rockyracoon wrote:

Methinks there is a fundamentally different approach from, say, Dan and meself, and almost all other posters. Ignoring the program and its affects (which would serve as an entire topic on its own), there seems to be a consensus that we should somehow be more tolerant and understading of peadophilia (spelling?). That back in Victorian times and further that child sex was an accepted norm. That social norms should be somehow be more lenient in modern times to reflect - cultural diversity, emotional complexity? I don't know what the underlying theme is really given some of the rebuttals have been made.

Now, I amn't no expert on sexual predators and their behavior but what information I've come across seems to suggest that peadophiles have urges which they cannot control and which is hard to modify without drug treatment or some other alternatives. In the meantime, saying that most children are safe from such predators ignores the fundamental issue that all children should be safe from such predators. The exact age is also a red herring. Age has nothing to do with the debate. The actions of sexual predators and how we deal with people who will not or can not control their urges is the central and unabiding issue.

Imo, tolerance is abhorrent and counseling close to useless. Economic arguments against penalisation just won't add up to the wreckage of a young persons life and the attendant costs associated with the predator. How these people are brought out into the light of day doesn't overly concern me, although a profit making show is somehow creepy in this regard.

Such people have existed from the dawn of eternity I would guess. Some because of wealth and priviledge may have made the practice seem normal. Life expectancy would have also played a part centuries and millenia ago. The view that children were a commodity to some extent played a part in other societies.

Years back a Guard would have know who such people were in the locality and kept an eye on them. Children were not stupid and could stear clear. A community can often keep such people at bay or ostracise them. Given modern technology, ability to travel and the breakdown of social cohension such standards are hard to applyin today's world.

My ears are burning. That there is no universal norm on sexuality was my point. There is no saying what will be acceptable fifty years from now, remember that homophobia was encouraged fifty years ago. I'm no expert either, but I think that the current situation, where the paedophile is treated as a sick person rather than a criminal bearing full responsibility for his or her actions, will shift back to the criminal idea. There seems to have been a fad in previous decades of diagnosing various human behaviour as a health issue. Alcoholism is a good example, other examples include various 'disorders' such as ADD and OCD. More lately (and with a general social swing towards individual responsibility) there is a tendency to discredit such notions and place responsibility for behaviour on the shoulders of the subject. (this is my theory, I patent it, hands off).

Paedophilia has been socially accepted before and I don't think wealth and privilege can explain it all. I think what we would consider paedophilia is still practiced in Papua New Guinea, however they would consider it a rite of passage.

905 wrote:

There seems to have been a fad in previous decades of diagnosing various human behaviour as a health issue. Alcoholism is a good example, other examples include various 'disorders' such as ADD and OCD. More lately (and with a general social swing towards individual responsibility) there is a tendency to discredit such notions and place responsibility for behaviour on the shoulders of the subject. (this is my theory, I patent it, hands off).

Paedophilia has been socially accepted before and I don't think wealth and privilege can explain it all. I think what we would consider paedophilia is still practiced in Papua New Guinea, however they would consider it a rite of passage.

That's a very interesting patent. Was Depression also treated as a cissy illness too long ago? I'm sure it was. I have the image of General Patton pistol-whipping a cowardly soldier except happening on a societal scale, the remedy for lots of complaints becoming "pull yourself together".

Have you any insights into how these cultural norms arise and then change and go through fads and phases?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Have you any insights into how these cultural norms arise and then change and go through fads and phases?

Not really, just that these medical issues (deppression is an excellent example) seem to have cropped up around the same time as the welfare state and it's associated politics. Of course it's a chicken-egg argument as to which came first. It seems to have taken Reagan and Thatcher's ideals a long time to permeate these supposedly medical issues. Apparantly, the science to refute the idea of alcoholism as a disease goes back to the sixties.

905 wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Have you any insights into how these cultural norms arise and then change and go through fads and phases?

Not really, just that these medical issues (deppression is an excellent example) seem to have cropped up around the same time as the welfare state and it's associated politics. Of course it's a chicken-egg argument as to which came first. It seems to have taken Reagan and Thatcher's ideals a long time to permeate these supposedly medical issues. Apparantly, the science to refute the idea of alcoholism as a disease goes back to the sixties.

I support the idea of treating this as a sickness. You understand the sickness and you've a tool whereby you can trace and catch the sicko.

Strictly speaking, the sickos we're discussing here are not paedophiles. Paedophiles prey on pre-adolescent children. Fraid I cannot remember the medical term for the sickos we're discussing.

Rapists fit into three categories:

i. Sexual sadists. These fuckers want to dominate, terrify and hurt their victims. Most serial killers would fit into this category. They're cold, calculating and entirely ruthless. They can also be highly intelligent and hard to catch.

ii. I forget the title of this type, but can give a description. They're Peter Pan type characters that live in a fantasy land. They actually believe that the person they're raping is enjoying it and indeed some even believe that the act may be the start of an ongoing relationship. This category can sometimes be reasoned with. The idea is to get them to identify with the victim. If the victim were to ask for example: "If I were someone you cared about, would you allow this to happen?" This type of rapist tends to have an IQ lower than the norm and is usually caught very easilly.

I'm afraid I cannot remember anything much about the third category, other than the fact that they've more traits in common with the second category than they have with the first.

Of course, predators who harm children are more than rapists and have extra traits that can be examined. As I said earlier, most attack children in families they are known to and most spend considerable time grooming their victims before the initial attack and indeed after it.

As long as we consider this a sickness, before and after we catch them, we arm ourselves with a methodology to catch them and to protect against them.

Should there be punishment included with 'treatment?' Absolutely. But to not avail of the opportunity to study these fuckers, we leave society to their mercy. And some of them have no concept of mercy.